From CNN.com's timeline of the events:"According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman tells authorities that after Zimmerman briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him. After the two exchange words, Zimmerman says, he reaches for his cell phone, and then Martin punches him in the nose. Zimmerman says Martin pins him to the ground and begins slamming his head into the sidewalk." Note this part of the timeline was confirmed by the police.When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

If some strange man came up to me when I was 17 in the middle of a Florida night and demanded why I was in my neighborhood, I'd have told him to fark off. If he touched me, I'd have kicked his ass too.

The only time something like that happened to me as a teen in Florida, the strange man had a wool cap over his head with eye holes cut into it, holding what appeared to be a small calibar semi-automatic handgun. I just lost $3 that night to the asshat. Called the cops but they couldn't find him, even with a K-9.

/Maybe Zimmerman should have had his gun out.//Martin would have seen the reall threat that was hidden until too late.

duffblue:Peter von Nostrand: tyrajam: The fact that he likes his weed is irrelevant to the case. The fact that he was having online conversations about purple drank, it was found in his system, and he was returning after buying 2 of the 3 ingredients used to make it does help explain why he was so aggressive and attacked the little mexican guy who ended up shooting him in self defense.

All of which is irrelevant if Zimmerman doesn't follow him for no reason and confront him

So it's acceptable to assault somebody who confronts you?

You'd think this was painfully obvious by now, but we have only Zimmerman's word for it that Martin struck first, and its possible he has some motivation for lying in this regard...

Abox:seadoo2006: ChaosStar: From CNN.com's timeline of the events:"According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman tells authorities that after Zimmerman briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him. After the two exchange words, Zimmerman says, he reaches for his cell phone, and then Martin punches him in the nose. Zimmerman says Martin pins him to the ground and begins slamming his head into the sidewalk." Note this part of the timeline was confirmed by the police.When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

This ... can't believe this is still being debated. It's good the little shiatstain got shot ... Zimmerman should be thanks for doing the world a favor.

That this is Zimmerman's story isn't being debated.

His story is backed up by the evidence.He lost sight of Martin while on the phone with dispatch.Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?Zimmerman: It's a home it's 1950, oh crap, I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.

Zimmerman then suffers a broken nose, injured head, and shows signs he was struggling while on his back. These are all signs of being the victim, not the aggressor.

AirForceVet:I think the Zimmerman defense team should have gone for a plea deal.

If some strange man came up to me when I was 17 in the middle of a Florida night and demanded why I was in my neighborhood, I'd have told him to fark off. If he touched me, I'd have kicked his ass too.

The only time something like that happened to me as a teen in Florida, the strange man had a wool cap over his head with eye holes cut into it, holding what appeared to be a small calibar semi-automatic handgun. I just lost $3 that night to the asshat. Called the cops but they couldn't find him, even with a K-9.

/Maybe Zimmerman should have had his gun out.//Martin would have seen the reall threat that was hidden until too late.

Anybody with a half of brain would do the same thing and would tell their kids to do the same. If they claim they wouldn't, they are full of shiat.

ChaosStar:When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

So Trayvon tracked back around to go start a fight with Zimmerman... while carrying a bag of Skittles and an Arizona brand drink? That doesn't make sense. Logic says if Trayvon had tracked back around to start a fight, he would have set down his drink and his Skittles before going. But the drink and the Skittles were found in close proximity to his body. He was carrying them when Zimmerman started the fight, and dropped them so he could defend himself.

"But there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight."

Wrong. Let's break this down.

Evidence From Which We May Infer Zimmerman Started the Fight:

1) Zimmerman had at least two motives to start a fight. Specifically, his anger at Trayvon, and revenge for the break-ins in his neighborhood. Both derived from Zimmerman's baseless belief that Trayon had participated in break-ins in his neighborhood.

2) Zimmerman's demeanor proves he was angry. Specifically, his use of expletives to describe Trayvon. Grunting "these assholes always get away," "these farking pcoonks" on a known recorded line with police showed sufficiently strong anger to overcome Zimmerman's sense of decorum. Zimmerman's tone of voice when Trayvon tried to escape the confrontation altogether confirms the inference. Zimmerman was mad. And he was mad at Trayvon.

3) We know Zimmerman believed Trayvon was a criminal, and responsible for the break-ins in his neighborhood. When he said "these assholes always get away," there was no other plausible referent for "these assholes" than those responsible for the break-ins. Zimmerman said at the outset that recent break ins-in his neighborhood motivated him to call the police on Trayvon. Zimmerman was thinking of two things when he said "these assholes always get away." Break-ins, and Trayvon Martin. By "these assholes," Zimmerman meant, among others, Trayvon Martin.

4) Zimmerman proved his commitment to confrontation first when he chased Trayvon against Neighborhood Watch protocol. He proved it again when he decided to get out of his vehicle against police advice. He wanted an encounter with Trayvon, and got it.

Note: Trayvon's disregard for the dispatcher's instructions proves his state of mind; he wasn't obliged to obey the dispatcher. But that he didn't demonstrates his commitment to confrontation. He so wanted a confrontation that he disregarded Neighborhood Watch protocol, police advice, and common sense to get one.

5) George Zimmerman knew he could handle a physical confrontation, because he was lethally armed.

Let's weight that against evidence Martin started the fight.

1) Trayvon may have tracked back around after initially seeking to escape the confrontation. But if he did so, we know his purpose wasn't to fight, because he was still carrying his Skittles and Arizona drink. Logic says if he had intended to start a fight, he would have set them down before tracking back. So if Trayvon did turn around, he did so most likely to observe the creepy, angry, cursing suspicious character invading his neighborhood, not start a fight with him.

2) Trayvon had THC in his blood serum. But the tests didn't show when he had smoked marijuana or if he was high at the time Zimmerman confronted him. Moreover, everyone with a lick of experience knows marijuana decreases aggression, not increases it. Thus, the proposition Trayvon was high on marijuana hurts Zimmerman's case rather than helps it.

3) Zimmerman's statements. But Zimmerman isn't a reliable witness. We know that because his pattern of prevarication since the shooting. And, btw, if we prove one lie, that not only further disqualifies Zimmerman's statements, it adds weight to the inference Zimmerman started the fight because it shows consciousness of wrongdoing.

4) Trayvon was a hoodlum with a history of violence. But so is Zimmerman. In fact, Zimmerman has a history of violence against police officers, and he committed his violence as an adult rather than as a juvenile. Hence, if Zimmerman's partisans want to assassinate the dead boy's character, the reality is that Zimmerman is the one with the greater demonstrated character for violence. The "character for violence" argument again undermines Zimmerman's defense, rather than supports it.

That's it. That's the entire case conservatives have put forth for the proposition that Trayvon started the fight. He might have tracked back around, he might have been stoned, and he was troubled. But their principle arguments undermine Zimmerman's case rather than support it.

Now, let's consider a few factors which Undermine the Inference Trayvon started the fight:

1) Trayvon sought to avoid confrontation altogether. We know this because Zimmerman admitted it on the phone.

2) Trayvon was either afraid of Zimmerman, or nonplussed by him. In the version of events Zimmerman gave over the phone, Trayvon fled from him. Because Trayvon was acting lawfully, not in possession of any contraband, we know he wasn't afraid of being caught in any criminal act. Which means Trayvon probably ran because Zimmerman menaced him in some way.

Zimmerman prevaricated on this issue. He later said Trayvon didn't flee, but had rather merrily skipped away. Either way, Zimmerman's own words undermine his own case. If Trayvon was afraid of Zimmerman, he wouldn't have wanted to fight. If Trayvon was nonplussed by Zimmerman, he had no motive to fight. So again, Zimmerman's defense undermines his own case rather than supports it.

3) Trayvon was completely unarmed. He had no special reason to believe he could handle a fight, and no belief he might end up in one. This in contrast to Zimmerman.

4) Trayvon had no motivation to start a fight. None. Any motivation Zimmerman's partisans submit is based entirely on speculation, not on evidence. This in contrast to Zimmerman's motives, which we may infer directly from his own statements on the night of the murder.

All of this adds up to Zimmerman started the fight beyond a reasonable doubt. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "to a moral certainty." It just means that if any cause you have to doubt isn't easily dispatched by logical consideration of the facts. Here, logical examination of the facts easily dispatches all plausible grounds to believe Zimmerman didn't start the fight.

Peter von Nostrand:duffblue: Peter von Nostrand: tyrajam: The fact that he likes his weed is irrelevant to the case. The fact that he was having online conversations about purple drank, it was found in his system, and he was returning after buying 2 of the 3 ingredients used to make it does help explain why he was so aggressive and attacked the little mexican guy who ended up shooting him in self defense.

All of which is irrelevant if Zimmerman doesn't follow him for no reason and confront him

So it's acceptable to assault somebody who confronts you?

Is it acceptable to assault someone you are confronting?

Is it acceptable to shoot someone you've been stalking and hunting for no reason after being told by 911 to go home?

ChaosStar:From CNN.com's timeline of the events:"According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman tells authorities that after Zimmerman briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him. After the two exchange words, Zimmerman says, he reaches for his cell phone, and then Martin punches him in the nose. Zimmerman says Martin pins him to the ground and begins slamming his head into the sidewalk." Note this part of the timeline was confirmed by the police.When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

quietwalker:- (1) The physical evidence available to police confirms the story - (2) The electronic (cell phone), information available to police confirms the story - (3) The actual eye witnesses corroborate the story - (4) The medical evidence (both Zimmerman's wounds, and the coroner's report) confirm the story - (5) After several hours of interrogation, police believed his story

(1) If Trayvon was on top of Martin when he was shot by Zimmerman, why wasn't GZ covered in Martin's blood? If he was lying down on wet ground when he was getting his head bashed in, why was his jacket clean? If Trayvon covered GZ's mouth with his hand to muffle him, why was there no evidence of Zimmerman's saliva or skin cells found on Martin's hand during the autopsy?

(2) The cell phone conversations haven't proved anything other than that George spotted Martin and pursued him (the 911 call), Trayvon noticed that Zimmerman was following him, and tried to get away (call to Trayvon's girlfriend). The phone records don't confirm who started the confrontation or anything after.

(3) Most of the eyewitnesses have admitted that it was too dark to see anything clear enough to be certain, and some eyewitness reports have been inconsistent with what they said at an earlier time.

(4) The medical evidence shows that Trayvon had no injuries on his body aside from the gunshot and an abrasion on his knuckle. Beating the crap out of someone is going to put some wear and tear on the hands of the assailant.

Tatsuma:Wolf_Blitzer: Trayvon Martin had absolutely no documented history of violence. George Zimmerman on the other hand...

Well, except for the fights he himself talked about on social media sites, the fact that he assaulted a bus driver (adult in position of authority asking him what he was doing) and he was caught with burglary tools and stolen property in his locker.

There's no evidence that any assault happened against a bus driver. Martin was suspended for marijuana.

If having tweets claiming to be in fights makes you violent, the entire Internet Tough Guy Brigade here should be in prison for life.

A Terrible Human:Why didn't Zimmerman stay the fark in his car like he was told to?

He might have, if he had been told to stay in his car. He wasn't though; he was asked by the dispatcher if he was following him (Martin), he said yes, the dispatcher told him that he didn't need to do that to which he replied ok and stopped.

The fact that he likes his weed is irrelevant to the case. The fact that he was having online conversations about purple drank, it was found in his system, and he was returning after buying 2 of the 3 ingredients used to make it does help explain why he was so aggressive and attacked the little mexican guy who ended up shooting him in self defense.

AirForceVet:If some strange man came up to me when I was 17 in the middle of a Florida night and demanded why I was in my neighborhood, I'd have told him to fark off. If he touched me, I'd have kicked his ass too

And that would be all he would need, in a court of law, to justify having shot you.

I donated to Zimmerman's defense fund. Why? He acted in self defense. He was afraid for his life. It comes as no surprise that lil Trayvon was a drug making gangster wanna be. He thought he would show how gangster he was an beat up somebody. Well, he beat up the wrong guy. Serves the little shiathead right. I hope Zimmerman is found not guilty of all charges.

Tatsuma:Wolf_Blitzer: Trayvon Martin had absolutely no documented history of violence. George Zimmerman on the other hand...

Well, except for the fights he himself talked about on social media sites, the fact that he assaulted a bus driver (adult in position of authority asking him what he was doing) and he was caught with burglary tools and stolen property in his locker.

Seriously Tatsuma, you're usually smarter than this. The "bus driver assault" never happened (something ten seconds googling would've established), the "burglary tools" were a screwdriver, and it was never established that anything in his locker was stolen property. After that, you've got some tweets. Yup, kid was definitely a menace to society.

AirForceVet:If some strange man came up to me when I was 17 in the middle of a Florida night and demanded why I was in my neighborhood, I'd have told him to fark off. If he touched me, I'd have kicked his ass too.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the only thing that matters to me. Zimmerman was told to stand down. He didn't. Everyone says Zimmerman was allowed to stand his ground, and that he was beaten as a result. Well, excuse the fark out of me, but if that asshole had been following me, I would've beaten him unconscious, standing MY ground. Apparently it's ok for Zimmerman, a twat with a record of violence, to stand his ground, but not for the black kid- with no record.

tyrajam:gimmegimme: tyrajam: gimmegimme:Can you please present guidelines as to what kind of online rhetoric is justification for a person's cold-blooded murder?

I think it's somewhere in the guidelines that when you jump on someone and start bashing their head into the pavement, they'll probably try to shoot you if they can.

What you said makes no sense. What possible motivation do people have for bringing Martin's online speech into a discussion of his death?

What I'm saying-and I'll type slowly so you can follow-is that all that matters is that Zimmerman was attacked and his head was being bashed into the cement. That is why the police initially decided not to arrest Zimmerman.

You need to search your heart and search your soul and when you find me there, you'll search no more. Do you realize that you are excusing the shooting on a self-defense basis and ignoring the fact that the 17-year-old kid also had ample opportunity to be afraid for his life? Why in the world would you only have concern for one person and not the other?

seadoo2006:Abox: Imagine a road rage incident where you chase a guy down because what the hell you have a gun, you get into a fight, and you shoot the guy dead because you were losing the fight. B-b-b-but I was standing my ground!

That's exactly the type of altercation that SYG was passed for

Chasing somebody down and shooting someone because you're on the losing end of a fight that would never had happened had you ACTUALLY stood your ground? Ah, sure why not.

tyrajam:The fact that he was having online conversations about purple drank, it was found in his system, and he was returning after buying 2 of the 3 ingredients used to make it does help explain why he was so aggressive and attacked the little mexican guy who ended up shooting him in self defense.

From Wikipedia: The autopsy report stated that Martin had trace levels of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, in his blood and urine.[144][145] The toxicology report found the levels to be 1.5 nanograms/ml of THC and 7.3 nanograms/ml of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after cannabis has been smoked.[144][145] Larry Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science, stated that the THC amount was so low that it may have been ingested days earlier and played no role in Martin's behavior.[146]

If he had consumed "purple drank" he would have had codeine in his system, which is not the case. Also, "drank" makes you lethargic, not aggressive (codeine is a sedative). "Drank" requires cough syrup, sprite (or vodka) and sometimes Jolly Ranchers. None of these items were purchased from Trayvon the night of his murder.

gimmegimme:Abox: seadoo2006: ChaosStar: From CNN.com's timeline of the events:"According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman tells authorities that after Zimmerman briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him. After the two exchange words, Zimmerman says, he reaches for his cell phone, and then Martin punches him in the nose. Zimmerman says Martin pins him to the ground and begins slamming his head into the sidewalk." Note this part of the timeline was confirmed by the police.When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

This ... can't believe this is still being debated. It's good the little shiatstain got shot ... Zimmerman should be thanks for doing the world a favor.

That this is Zimmerman's story isn't being debated.

Dude, why wouldn't you take Zimmerman's story at face value?

We don't need to take his story at face value.

- The physical evidence available to police confirms the story - The electronic (cell phone), information available to police confirms the story - The actual eye witnesses corroborate the story - The medical evidence (both Zimmerman's wounds, and the coroner's report) confirm the story - After several hours of interrogation, police believed his story

... and finally,

- Any other alternate descriptions of the event are based on pure speculation of attitudes or events that either appear to conflict with the character history of those involved (Zimmerman as a racist, Martin as non-violent), or are impossible to prove (Zimmerman initiated a physical assault after the phone call), and thus not valid evidence, and should be ignored.

We have no need to take his story at face value; it's already been tested at the hands of the law, and it has passed. It's a reasonable explanation of events, and it's been confirmed to the best ability of the professionals who's job it is to handle such things.

I suspect that those who disagree, who cling to their speculations, are actually exhibiting some sort of bias; either versus authority, guns, assumed guilt of the survivor of a conflict, or simply by way of racial discrimination.

duffblue:Peter von Nostrand: tyrajam: The fact that he likes his weed is irrelevant to the case. The fact that he was having online conversations about purple drank, it was found in his system, and he was returning after buying 2 of the 3 ingredients used to make it does help explain why he was so aggressive and attacked the little mexican guy who ended up shooting him in self defense.

All of which is irrelevant if Zimmerman doesn't follow him for no reason and confront him

duffblue:gimmegimme: FloridaFarkTag: MJMaloney187: Wait? Does the article say the defense was allowed to use all that? I thought the article said the hearing was next week ...

No, it has yet to be allowed

Some of it will be allowed. This judge will be overturned on appeal if evidence is not allowed and Zimmerman is convicted....esp any evidence showing TM stoned around the time of incident, pot use, and any time the prosecutors spew the "Trayvon was a 14 yr old honor student" BS

It is obvious that the prosecution is in trouble.... they want all the negative Trayvon evidence excluded....you can't lynch an innocent man if you are caught cold busted lying

Just wonder how much of their ghetto the Black Racists gonna burn when they can't lynch Zimmerman...

duffblue:ChaosStar: gimmegimme: GF named my left testicle thundercles: gimmegimme: GF named my left testicle thundercles: If you have more loyalty to your race than you do to truth and justice then you are part of the problem.

Isn't it sick? These people are gleeful over the death of a 17-year-old kid.

[files.abovetopsecret.com image 520x673]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x749]

i dont know the facts. but it is possible that he deserved it by attacking zimmerman. i dont know if that is the case. everyone should chill out. allow the facts to be presented in a reasonable manner in court. that is all i have to say.

Why excuse Zimmerman's actions? If you are armed and you stalk someone around in a car and then on foot and follow the person between buildings when it's clear they are trying to get the hell away from you, well, you just started a fight.

Unless you're a cop, which Zimmerman, with his history of violence, is certainly not.

That's a perfect way to start a fight.To bad that's not what happened in this case.

Tell us what happened. You seem to know something the rest of the country doesn't.

Be cause your hyperbolic rest of the country doesn't read the phone call transcripts, listen to the calls, read the witness statements, Zimmerman's statements, etc.It's all outlined, its all pretty much follows Zimmerman's accounting of things.No, everyone just grabs onto whatever story they heard on the news the night of the shooting, or whatever misinformation was distributed through Facebook, Twitter, and whatever other social media people use these days and treats it as gospel.

seadoo2006:gimmegimme: seadoo2006: gimmegimme: GF named my left testicle thundercles: gimmegimme: GF named my left testicle thundercles: If you have more loyalty to your race than you do to truth and justice then you are part of the problem.

Isn't it sick? These people are gleeful over the death of a 17-year-old kid.

[files.abovetopsecret.com image 520x673]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x749]

i dont know the facts. but it is possible that he deserved it by attacking zimmerman. i dont know if that is the case. everyone should chill out. allow the facts to be presented in a reasonable manner in court. that is all i have to say.

Why excuse Zimmerman's actions? If you are armed and you stalk someone around in a car and then on foot and follow the person between buildings when it's clear they are trying to get the hell away from you, well, you just started a fight.

Unless you're a cop, which Zimmerman, with his history of violence, is certainly not.

Does that mean I can just walk through your yard anytime, while looking suspicious, and get pissed if anyoen asks me why I'm doing so and if they keep following me after I "try" to leave. Can I beat up that homeowner for doing so?

Zimmerman didn't own the home. Your analogy is sillypants.

Besides, you would call 911 and do as you're told.

Uh, no, I've called 911 on several obvious drunk drivers and a couple hit-and-run people and followed them even against the 911 operator's advice ... why you may ask? For the same reason that people own guns, because by the time the police show up, that person is long gone.

Put it another way ... if you were sideswiped in traffic and the person took off ... would you call the police and wait for them to catch the hit and run, or would you keep your tabs on them until the police got there? I mean, that's what insurance is for, so why do you give two shiats if the person that hit your car is caught or not.

Okay, okay...let's continue with your line of thought. You would follow someone who just sideswiped you so you could get their license plate number. You would stand out on your porch with a gun when someone walks through your yard. (You're a helluva neighbor, by the way.) I can see the logic here.

Why was Zimmerman following Martin? Under what authority did he engage in an armed pursuit?

gimmegimme:ChaosStar: Abox: seadoo2006: ChaosStar: From CNN.com's timeline of the events:"According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman tells authorities that after Zimmerman briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him. After the two exchange words, Zimmerman says, he reaches for his cell phone, and then Martin punches him in the nose. Zimmerman says Martin pins him to the ground and begins slamming his head into the sidewalk." Note this part of the timeline was confirmed by the police.When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

This ... can't believe this is still being debated. It's good the little shiatstain got shot ... Zimmerman should be thanks for doing the world a favor.

That this is Zimmerman's story isn't being debated.

His story is backed up by the evidence.He lost sight of Martin while on the phone with dispatch.Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?Zimmerman: It's a home it's 1950, oh crap, I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.

Zimmerman then suffers a broken nose, injured head, and shows signs he was struggling while on his back. These are all signs of being the victim, not the aggressor.

GF named my left testicle thundercles:gimmegimme: GF named my left testicle thundercles: If you have more loyalty to your race than you do to truth and justice then you are part of the problem.

Isn't it sick? These people are gleeful over the death of a 17-year-old kid.

[files.abovetopsecret.com image 520x673]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x749]

i dont know the facts. but it is possible that he deserved it by attacking zimmerman. i dont know if that is the case. everyone should chill out. allow the facts to be presented in a reasonable manner in court. that is all i have to say.

Why excuse Zimmerman's actions? If you are armed and you stalk someone around in a car and then on foot and follow the person between buildings when it's clear they are trying to get the hell away from you, well, you just started a fight.

Unless you're a cop, which Zimmerman, with his history of violence, is certainly not.

seadoo2006:ChaosStar: From CNN.com's timeline of the events:"According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman tells authorities that after Zimmerman briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him. After the two exchange words, Zimmerman says, he reaches for his cell phone, and then Martin punches him in the nose. Zimmerman says Martin pins him to the ground and begins slamming his head into the sidewalk." Note this part of the timeline was confirmed by the police.When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

This ... can't believe this is still being debated. It's good the little shiatstain got shot ... Zimmerman should be thanks for doing the world a favor.

You really need trolling lessons. Luckily, there are some masters around here that could probably take you under their wing.

Keizer_Ghidorah:The entire incident happened because Zimmerman saw a black teen walking down the street and immediately thought he was responsible for some break-ins that had occurred previously. If he had minded his own business and not pronounced guilt on a complete stranger then none of this would have happened.

You are ignoring the fact that the description of the burglars in all the break-ins was young black males.

If my neighborhood association sent out an email urging homeowners to be on the lookout for young black males breaking into homes then I would be suspicious of anyone who fit the profile. Likewise if my neighborhood association sent out an email urging homeowners to be on the lookout for young white males breaking into homes then I would be suspicious of any white male who fit the profile.

I love how everyone ignores Obama's white half, but refer to him as african-american.Zimmerman? Everyone finds it critical to point out he's a white hispanic. Really, hypocrites?

Trayvon was a dumb ass black kid, doing the same illicit crap that other dumb ass black kids do.In 2013, black kids mock other black kids for speaking 'proper' and dressing mainstream.That means that SPEAKING PROPER ENGLISH AND DRESSING WITHOUT YOUR PANTS FALLING DOWN IS ASSOCIATED WITH BEING WHITE.

When your culture is violent and perfectly excusable due to all of the ill-effects of 'white privilege' it removes any responsibility.You people are stupid for being so completely sure Zimmerman is a bad racist. Disgusting.

Hey, maybe whites shouldn't have treated them as animals and sub-humans up until about 60 years ago. Anyone would be rather upset after that, along with the continued treatment they still receive today.

Also pretty hypocritical of you to assume all black people are violent thugs while whining about people seeing Zimmerman himself as a racist wannabe cowboy cop.

I love how everyone ignores Obama's white half, but refer to him as african-american.Zimmerman? Everyone finds it critical to point out he's a white hispanic. Really, hypocrites?

Trayvon was a dumb ass black kid, doing the same illicit crap that other dumb ass black kids do.In 2013, black kids mock other black kids for speaking 'proper' and dressing mainstream.That means that SPEAKING PROPER ENGLISH AND DRESSING WITHOUT YOUR PANTS FALLING DOWN IS ASSOCIATED WITH BEING WHITE.

When your culture is violent and perfectly excusable due to all of the ill-effects of 'white privilege' it removes any responsibility.You people are stupid for being so completely sure Zimmerman is a bad racist. Disgusting.

bugontherug:ChaosStar: When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

So Trayvon tracked back around to go start a fight with Zimmerman... while carrying a bag of Skittles and an Arizona brand drink? That doesn't make sense. Logic says if Trayvon had tracked back around to start a fight, he would have set down his drink and his Skittles before going. But the drink and the Skittles were found in close proximity to his body. He was carrying them when Zimmerman started the fight, and dropped them so he could defend himself.

"But there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight."

Wrong. Let's break this down.

Evidence From Which We May Infer Zimmerman Started the Fight:

1) Zimmerman had at least two motives to start a fight. Specifically, his anger at Trayvon, and revenge for the break-ins in his neighborhood. Both derived from Zimmerman's baseless belief that Trayon had participated in break-ins in his neighborhood.

2) Zimmerman's demeanor proves he was angry. Specifically, his use of expletives to describe Trayvon. Grunting "these assholes always get away," "these farking pcoonks" on a known recorded line with police showed sufficiently strong anger to overcome Zimmerman's sense of decorum. Zimmerman's tone of voice when Trayvon tried to escape the confrontation altogether confirms the inference. Zimmerman was mad. And he was mad at Trayvon.

3) We know Zimmerman believed Trayvon was a criminal, and responsible for the break-ins in his neighborhood. When he said "these assholes always get away," there was no other plausible referent for "these assholes" than those responsible for the break-ins. Zimmerman said at the outset that recent brea ...

Well, i'm glad you stopped calling him the "criminal defendant" to try to make yourself sound smarter than you are.

Your posts are still full of the same horseshiat they've been full of in every other thread about this.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're making inferences and ignoring any evidence which is contradictory to your narrative.

lantawa:cegorach: lantawa: cegorach: planet where you shouldn't be able to stalk and kill people based on the colour of their skin and get away with it by hiding behind the most godawful retarded laws made to shield violent gun owners from the repercussions of their actions.

Well hello, scofflaw racist.......

Considering I am not an American, I can scoff at your backwards-ass murderous laws all I like.

And considering you're the one defending the person who committed murder based on racial profiling activities, your REVERSE RACISM isn't exactly doing much more than playing to the retards in the audience.

As I wrote earlier, you ignorant retard in regards to interpreting American law, but now with more ethical and moral authority than in my earlier post (due to your alien perspective), hello, you ignorant scofflaw racist.

Considering you're cheering alongside Tenpoundsofderp, I'd suggest you rein in that high horse.

Your law is retarded and made to protect the rights of gun owners. This case is a clear example of the abuse it can be put to. God forbid anyone scoff at that.

And pointing out racist behaviour is only racism in the minds of racists such as yourself.

Still waiting for a non-racial-profiling rationale behind Zimmerman's behaviour. If it's as OBVIOUS as you people seem to think, I'm surprised it's taking so long for you to deliver it.

Neither of us know. I'm just honest about it instead of making up stories like you do.

Well, has Zimmerman made any commentary, either in recorded calls or statements to police, as to why he was hunting Martin?

Because without any other reason - you know, Martin was smashing windows, setting fire to things - there's a very short list of motivations as to why he would stalk him.

And of those reasons. 'racist' is possibly one of the better motivations - and certainly the most likely by an exponential factor.

The joke is that there is a good reason for this - the dreaded 'young black male crime statistics' that no one can ever discuss rationally.

With no other rationale in sight, Zimmerman profiled and stalked Martin. A racist action, supported by plenty of circumstantial evidence regarding the propensity of young black males to be involved in crime. And both the racism, and the young black male crime issues, are simply issues that US society doesn't like dealing with because the solutions to both issues are unpalatable.

But no one wants to say that. Instead we have bullshiat discussions of 'standing your ground', Twitter comments and dubious witness statements which will culminate in a courthouse sideshow with a result determined by media influence.

What planet do you live on?

/And can the pentagon please disable whatever transmitters are in orbit that let you threadshiat here on Earth?

A planet where you shouldn't be able to stalk and kill people based on the colour of their skin and get away with it by hiding behind the most godawful retarded laws made to shield violent gun owners from the repercussions of their actions.

redmid17:s2s2s2: The most relevant of GZ's past actions, are the multiple times he called police regarding suspicious activity and didn't end up in an altercation with the suspects.

That and his arrest for "assaulting a police officer" came when an undercover officer was hassling his buddy (rightfully) about underage drinking in a bar. I don't think it's out of the ordinary to confront someone who appears to be threatening your buddy.

I first heard about this case when Melissa Harris Perry brought it up. I was pissed that some dude would just chase down a kid and kill him in cold blood.

I started looking into it. Then it became "Well, she kinda lied about some stuff". I find this all fascinating, because it really makes us look at what is right, versus what is legal, and how what is legal sometimes trumps what is right.

People can say all they want that if George never got out of his car...Truth is, that wasn't the point of no return. George may have continued pursuit after ending the call with 911. There just isn't any evidence to prove it.

Based on evidence, I don't see how a rational mind could convict him.

The most fascinating part of this is watching usually loony conservatives sticking with facts and reason, and watching usually reasonable, intelligent liberals stick with emotion and what ifs.

That said, if you're all so worried about a teenage black thug getting gunned down I sure as shiat hope you never read the news, because, you know, it happens every single day.

Remind me again why this one is worth anybody's attention?

There are plenty of other black thugs out there who will be killed - many even today, as you read this thread. Don't bogart your pretend outrage.

mostly because the local police tried the bury the case and ignore it

That is incorrect. The police wanted to charge him. Charges were never brought, because the case against GZ was too weak. It still is.

It took Jesse Jackass and Al nottosharpton stirring up the media for this to become a national case. Now the DA has to go for a murder charge or voters might toss him out of office. The DA being an elected office detrimes often which cases get tried.

ravenlore:Here's one way a concerned neighbor (NW wannabe) could have confronted Martin:

*Zimmerman rolls down window* "Hey, kid, it's getting late. You should head home. I don't think I know you, are you new to the neighborhood? I'm George, btw."

Martin: "Dude wtf? I was going to the store and now I'm going to my Dad's. Mind your own damn business."

*Zimmerman rolls up window* "Damn kids these days!"

And nobody dies.

You can be a "concerned neighbor" without following and confronting a young person while you are armed.

/At BEST Zimmerman utterly FAILS at NW//I hope the jury is allowed to consider voluntary manslaughter///IMHO that would still be getting away easy

It's the best possible outcome. Calling Zimmerman a murderer is a stretch, but he has proven himself to be dangerous and reckless when it comes to firearms. Manslaughter or negligent homicide is a fair punishment.

I have no problem with him getting 2-3 years in prison and never being allowed to own a gun again. Having a gun for protection does not mean you go out looking for trouble.

ChaosStar:tirob:1. That doesn't allow him to resort to violence, and gives Zimmerman the stand your ground law to protect him.2. How else would there be lacerations on the back of his head? There was grass, there was concrete, and the only weapon was a gun.3. Friend how long do you think this fight lasted? Zimmerman ended his phone call with the dispatcher at 7:15pm, the first officer arrived on the scene at 7:17pm. This wasn't something he had the chance to mull over, he was scared for his life and reacted.

On June 26, 2012, the prosecution released the results of a voice stress test is a type of test used to measure deceptive or psychological stress in the human voice in response to questions. Zimmerman was asked, "Did you confront the guy you shot?", to which Zimmerman answered, "No." Zimmerman was asked, "Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?", to which Zimmerman answered, "Yes." The examiner concluded that Zimmerman "told substantially the complete truth" in the examination, and Zimmerman was classified as "No Deception Indicated (NDI)" according to the report.

a voice stress test is about as accurate as a polygraph, both are a lot of BS that people use to justify there hunches

Here is the thing. The evidence that Zimmerman wants in likely isn't seen as relevant and will probably be ruled as inadmissible. That isn't the point of this motion although if it gets in, it is gravy. This is all about leaking information to the public to try and affect the jury pool. Get it in the minds of potential jurors now that Martin was a violent thug that had it coming as shown by the pictures and messages on the phone. Even if he loses the motion (as is likely) this is all about positioning for the trial. It is used to counter some of the other statements and pictures of a younger Martin who looks innocent and tends to suggest that all Zimmerman was doing was out to beat up and kill a black person.

Will it work? Who knows, but it is a smart move as far as positioning Zimmerman for the trial to dirty up the victim. Just as the prosecution and other parties have been dirtying up Zimmerman in the preceeding months. It just goes to show the sausage making that is the justice system in the US. Who cares about the truth, its all about the perceptions of the victim and/or the defendant.

ChaosStar:1. you're reaching way to far. Revenge? Seriously? That's why he called the cops instead of just running after Martin, tackling him, and beating the crap out of him

Yes, revenge. But even if you dismiss that one, you didn't and can't that Zimmerman was mad, and mad a Trayvon personally. Being mad at someone you're convinced is a criminal is a motive to start a fight.

Nabb1:bugontherug: Nabb1: People tend to let their emotions get the better of them when they attach politics to analyzing something like this.

So ad hom number too, coupled with another pretension that this case is wholly apolitical in your mind. Nice.

I was speaking I general terms, but if you think that shoe fits, then by all means lace it up and wear it. You seem particularly irritated by people who aren't convinced by the case you've laid out. Do you engage opposing counsel or judges with the same hostility?

KimNorth:mittromneysdog: bugontherug: ChaosStar: When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

So Trayvon tracked back around to go start a fight with Zimmerman... while carrying a bag of Skittles and an Arizona brand drink? That doesn't make sense. Logic says if Trayvon had tracked back around to start a fight, he would have set down his drink and his Skittles before going. But the drink and the Skittles were found in close proximity to his body. He was carrying them when Zimmerman started the fight, and dropped them so he could defend himself.

"But there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight."

Wrong. Let's break this down.

Evidence From Which We May Infer Zimmerman Started the Fight:

1) Zimmerman had at least two motives to start a fight. Specifically, his anger at Trayvon, and revenge for the break-ins in his neighborhood. Both derived from Zimmerman's baseless belief that Trayon had participated in break-ins in his neighborhood.

2) Zimmerman's demeanor proves he was angry. Specifically, his use of expletives to describe Trayvon. Grunting "these assholes always get away," "these farking pcoonks" on a known recorded line with police showed sufficiently strong anger to overcome Zimmerman's sense of decorum. Zimmerman's tone of voice when Trayvon tried to escape the confrontation altogether confirms the inference. Zimmerman was mad. And he was mad at Trayvon.

3) We know Zimmerman believed Trayvon was a criminal, and responsible for the break-ins in his neighborhood. When he said "these assholes always get away," there was no other plausible referent for "these assholes" than those responsible for the break-ins. Zimmerman said at the outset tha ...

Zimmerman was most likely right Trayvon probably had done some break-ins in the neighborhood....just saying....

Click Click D'oh:Azlefty: 5) NO I wouldn't under many states laws including Florida since I could show by Zimmerman's actions that I felt fear of imminent harm. even here in good old libby lib CA it would be considered justifiable self defense since:

Speaking as a professional lethal force instructor, you have this all wrong. Simply being followed does not raise to the level necessary to use force against a person. The person must commit a specific articulable action that has the ability to cause immediate harm. Even if they are walking behind you with a gun or a knife, it still doesn't raise to the level where you can use force against them. The person would need to attempt to use the weapon against you, or take some other action which would cause you to believe that they are about to use it against you.

Simply being followed does not cross the threshold for the use of force.

Hobodeluxe:s2s2s2: AirForceVet: If some strange man came up to me when I was 17 in the middle of a Florida night and demanded why I was in my neighborhood, I'd have told him to fark off. If he touched me, I'd have kicked his ass too

And that would be all he would need, in a court of law, to justify having shot you.

Your Average Witty Fark User: Zimmerman was told to stand down. He didn't.

That is a lie.

911 dispatcher: are you following him?Zimmerman; yes911 dispatcher: we don't need you to do that

anindependent:bugontherug: But if he did so, we know his purpose wasn't to fight, because he was still carrying his Skittles and Arizona drink. Logic says if he had intended to start a fight, he would have set them down before tracking back. So if Trayvon did turn around, he did so most likely to observe the creepy, angry, cursing suspicious character invading his neighborhood, not start a fight with him.

This is actually pretty crushing to the claim Trayvon backtracked so he could start a fight.

bugontherug:ChaosStar: When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

So Trayvon tracked back around to go start a fight with Zimmerman... while carrying a bag of Skittles and an Arizona brand drink? That doesn't make sense. Logic says if Trayvon had tracked back around to start a fight, he would have set down his drink and his Skittles before going. But the drink and the Skittles were found in close proximity to his body. He was carrying them when Zimmerman started the fight, and dropped them so he could defend himself.

"But there's no evidence Zimmerman started the fight."

Wrong. Let's break this down.

Evidence From Which We May Infer Zimmerman Started the Fight:

1) Zimmerman had at least two motives to start a fight. Specifically, his anger at Trayvon, and revenge for the break-ins in his neighborhood. Both derived from Zimmerman's baseless belief that Trayon had participated in break-ins in his neighborhood.

2) Zimmerman's demeanor proves he was angry. Specifically, his use of expletives to describe Trayvon. Grunting "these assholes always get away," "these farking pcoonks" on a known recorded line with police showed sufficiently strong anger to overcome Zimmerman's sense of decorum. Zimmerman's tone of voice when Trayvon tried to escape the confrontation altogether confirms the inference. Zimmerman was mad. And he was mad at Trayvon.

3) We know Zimmerman believed Trayvon was a criminal, and responsible for the break-ins in his neighborhood. When he said "these assholes always get away," there was no other plausible referent for "these assholes" than those responsible for the break-ins. Zimmerman said at the outset that recent brea ...

Wrong, lets break down how you don't know what you're talking about.1. you're reaching way to far. Revenge? Seriously? That's why he called the cops instead of just running after Martin, tackling him, and beating the crap out of him? Sure buddy.2. Expressing frustration at police response time being so slow that these "f*cking punks" (seriously, listen to the recording, it's clear as day he says punks and not a racial slur) get away? Yeah, that's totally going into the evidence file that he started the fight.3. You're just rehashing your second point. Zimmerman didn't even know Martin before this night so if you're somehow trying to infer that he has it out for Martin then you have shot to the top of the ignorant scoreboard.4. Ah and here's where I know for a fact you don't know what you're talking about. He wasn't acting as part of the watch at the time, he was driving to the store, and he was never advised by police not to get out of his vehicle. In fact he was already on foot when he was talking to the dispatcher.Note: he didn't disregard the dispatchers instructions cause, as has been pointed out many times above, the dispatcher cannot give instructions. He was told by the dispatcher that he didn't need to follow Martin, and he said ok and stopped.5. This is just stupid

1. Seriously? Because he didn't set down his drug mixers that's evidence he didn't want to start a fight? Try harder.2. The medical evidence has already ruled the THC level was low enough that he couldn't have been high when all this went down, not that anyone with common sense is claiming him smoking weed made him attack Zimmerman. Good try at obfuscation though.3. Really? His "lies" were about money that he held back to help himself live in hiding from people who were doing things like issuing bounties on his life. Yeah, forgive me if I don't condemn a man because he wanted to keep something back to save his neck from the Black Panthers.4. His "history of violence with police officers" was him shoving a police officer, which was reduced to resisting without violence and then waived when he entered a sobriety program. He was 20 (only three years older than Martin I might add) and alcohol was involved. That's hardly a "greater demonstrated character for violence".

1. Except that he came back2. Zimmerman was acting lawfully as well, and you're gonna have to cite a source for this "merrily skipped away" horseshiat.3. Except, as you yourself said, he had a history of violence and was clearly willing to get in a fight4. Martin wanting to be a "thug" and feeling that Zimmerman was slighting him by following him is motivation enough. What sort of evidence do you want about the thoughts of a dead man?

Beyond a reasonable doubt? Kiddo, you didn't even provide enough to get him charged.

bugontherug:But if he did so, we know his purpose wasn't to fight, because he was still carrying his Skittles and Arizona drink. Logic says if he had intended to start a fight, he would have set them down before tracking back. So if Trayvon did turn around, he did so most likely to observe the creepy, angry, cursing suspicious character invading his neighborhood, not start a fight with him.

This is actually pretty crushing to the claim Trayvon backtracked so he could start a fight.

gimmegimme:tyrajam: Yawn. Your trolling has lost its entertainment value. Nobody believes that after your head is split open you should wait for more serious damage to occur before you defend yourself.

And no one believes that if your head is "split open" that a Band-Aid will suffice.

The one big thing I've learned from your rather "interesting" comments is anyone should feel totally safe attacking you, since even if they jump on you and slam your hear into the sidewalk you apparently feel it's impolite to pull a weapon to defend yourself.

I just find it to be a funny coincidence-- and surely, it's just a coincidence-- that all the people defending Zimmerman also happen to be the same most-likely white macho-type guys who frequent gun threads babbling about Obama takin' their guns and how the MSM doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

Just a funny coincidence. Surely, the cracker gun nuts aren't also racists?!?!

ChaosStar:1. correct, but the physical evidence pretty much backs up what Zimmerman said, as well as witness testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman pummeling him. 2. There is a difference between chasing and following. Zimmerman clearly had no intention to catch Martin, he was only observing, so no, that is not assault under Florida law. 3. As I stated before, it's a reasonable question if you want to try and act like a intimidating thug instead of a reasonable person. 4. When did Zimmerman have the chance? Martin punched him after two sentences. 5. Then you would be wrong and subject to arrest, or, as the case is here, dead. You are not in reasonable fear for your life just because someone reaches into their pocket.

1) No it only backs up parts of it, all we know for the physical evidence is that Zimmerman chased Martin, got into a fight with Martin and was losing the fight when he shot Martin

2) Under Florida law it is illegal to "follow: someone if that creates fear or apprehension, a clear indicator of fear or apprehension is when the personflees from you, intent isfurther shownwhen you leave your vehicle to continue to follow them, as forZimmerman intent of not catching him there is no indicationthat true, onlyZimmermanword which is very suspect due to hislying about hisfinancestothe court

3) I am glad you agree that Martin hadevery right to question Zimmerman as to why he was following him that is something areasonable person would ask a thug.

4) Zimmerman had a Chance toreply when Martinconfronted him, yet he admits to being evasive by saying hehad no problem

5) NO I wouldn't under many states laws including Florida since I could show by Zimmerman's actions that I felt fear of imminent harm. even here in good old libby lib CA it would be considered justifiable self defense since:

I was being "followed" by a stranger in a carI was then "followed" by that person who left their car and continued to "follow" me on foot as I fled from themRounding a corner and immediately meeting up with them as I tried to flee them, I asked what their problem was and they became evasive by saying they did not have oneWhich upon answering they reached into their pocket for an object, which due to their preceding actions made me have reasonable fear that it was a weapon and I was facing imminent harm

Like I said keep it up you are making the prosecutions case for them, FYI.

Say what you really mean and say black culture. Quit avoiding the truth

Nope.I have said before, in almost all the gun threads, that we have a culture of violence in this country.Hollywood is out of control and they duck whenever there is a mass shooting.

Well I'm saying black culture. They need to look at themselves for the source of thier problems

Getting shot when they're unarmed?

No. Martin most likey thought he was being "disrespected" by Zimmerman. He figured he would teach that honky a lesson. Expect he got taught not to attack people. Maybe other blacks will see this and learn crime doesn't pay.

You're really good at reading the minds of dead people. Can you ask my grandma where my car keys are?

And don't you mean "blah people?"

Well we do know he backtracked to find Zimmerman. A scared boy doesn't do that. He wanted revenge.

Say what you really mean and say black culture. Quit avoiding the truth

Nope.I have said before, in almost all the gun threads, that we have a culture of violence in this country.Hollywood is out of control and they duck whenever there is a mass shooting.

Well I'm saying black culture. They need to look at themselves for the source of thier problems

Getting shot when they're unarmed?

No. Martin most likey thought he was being "disrespected" by Zimmerman. He figured he would teach that honky a lesson. Expect he got taught not to attack people. Maybe other blacks will see this and learn crime doesn't pay.

quietwalker:To disagree with you though, everything that the police indicated they considered does confirm everything Zimmerman said. They could find no contradictions, as you pointed out, and further, where evidence would exist, it did. So strongly did this evidence support his side that the police didn't even arrest him. It wasn't until a politically motivated individual tried to ride a wave of public resentment well after the situation had passed that he was even charged.

*AHEM*

During a bond hearing on April 20, 2012, Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified under oath that he did not know whether Zimmerman or Martin started the fight and that there is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claim that he was walking back to his vehicle when Martin confronted him. Gilbreath, however, questioned Zimmerman's statement that Martin was slamming his head against the sidewalk just before he shot the teenager, saying it was "not consistent with the evidence we found."[204][205][206] Gilbreath was one of two investigators who attested to the facts stated in the probable cause affidavit.

Now you're talking as if you know everything happened exactly as Zimmerman says it is, which means you're just trolling.

tyrajam:gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: gblive: tyrajam: Wolf_Blitzer: Tatsuma: He also texted a picture of himself holding a gun, asked another one to help him buy one, and proclaimed himself to be a gangsta. That's way above and beyond ITG

What in the fark are you talking about? Nobody cares that Martin had pics of a gun on his phone, it is the text messages on his phone where he is trying to illegally buy a pistol that are being considered. Talk about pathetic!

If you read some other articles... the pistol in the picture on Trayvon's phone is believed to be stolen.

How did Zimmerman know about the picture?

Martin may have shown it to Zimmerman before the altercation started.You don't know either way.

WTF does it matter. You are missing the point again.

The point is that you are grasping at straws. How could the picture of a gun that you mention give Zimmerman a reason to shoot the kid?

Holy.Farking.Crap. The "reason" he shot Trayvon was because Martin came back and attacked him and was bashing his head into the cement. The defense showing that Martin was trying to illegally buy a gun and used drugs is just to blow holes in the prosecutions attempts to show that Martin was an innocent little child. In the end it doesn't matter. Martin attacked Zimmerman and was shot. It's sad, but not overly complicated.

Hmmm...if Zimmerman had his "head bashed into the cement," surely he was in the hospital for quite some time, right?

gimmegimme:tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: gblive: tyrajam: Wolf_Blitzer: Tatsuma: He also texted a picture of himself holding a gun, asked another one to help him buy one, and proclaimed himself to be a gangsta. That's way above and beyond ITG

What in the fark are you talking about? Nobody cares that Martin had pics of a gun on his phone, it is the text messages on his phone where he is trying to illegally buy a pistol that are being considered. Talk about pathetic!

If you read some other articles... the pistol in the picture on Trayvon's phone is believed to be stolen.

How did Zimmerman know about the picture?

Martin may have shown it to Zimmerman before the altercation started.You don't know either way.

WTF does it matter. You are missing the point again.

The point is that you are grasping at straws. How could the picture of a gun that you mention give Zimmerman a reason to shoot the kid?

Holy.Farking.Crap. The "reason" he shot Trayvon was because Martin came back and attacked him and was bashing his head into the cement. The defense showing that Martin was trying to illegally buy a gun and used drugs is just to blow holes in the prosecutions attempts to show that Martin was an innocent little child. In the end it doesn't matter. Martin attacked Zimmerman and was shot. It's sad, but not overly complicated.

Is there any evidence of this perceived slight that you mention? Because all the evidence and purported evidence that you have listed here in your posts are also consistent with Martin's perhaps perceiving that he and/or his father's fiancée's condo unit were in danger from a stranger who was following him for no reason that he could fathom.

"Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police." - Orlando SentinelYou don't really walk up to someone and ask them "do you have a problem" unless you feel like they've done or are doing something against you in some way.

I would give this uncorroborated hearsay from a biased witness a good bit less credibility than you appear to do. Furthermore, even if this is an accurate reconstruction of the conversation that preceded the fight, it is as consistent with my scenario as it is with yours.

Whether my scenario or yours is correct, Martin is still the aggressor and in the eyes of the law Zimmerman could legally used deadly force if he felt that his life was in danger. When Martin started utilizing the sidewalk as a weapon to the back of Zimmerman's head, Zimmerman had full reason to believe his life may be in danger.

it comes down to this

An Armed Adult, was stalking an unarmed minor

and the minor ended up dead

then the police let his body sit in the morgue for 3 days as a "Jhon Doe"(note his was a John doe who was carrying ID and cellphone) ,until his mother filled a missing persons

The police in this area have a vested intrest in supporting zimmermans side of the story, being they commented a ton of documented wrong doing in the handling of this case before it came to attention of the general public

Is there any evidence of this perceived slight that you mention? Because all the evidence and purported evidence that you have listed here in your posts are also consistent with Martin's perhaps perceiving that he and/or his father's fiancée's condo unit were in danger from a stranger who was following him for no reason that he could fathom.

"Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police." - Orlando SentinelYou don't really walk up to someone and ask them "do you have a problem" unless you feel like they've done or are doing something against you in some way.

I would give this uncorroborated hearsay from a biased witness a good bit less credibility than you appear to do. Furthermore, even if this is an accurate reconstruction of the conversation that preceded the fight, it is as consistent with my scenario as it is with yours.

Whether my scenario or yours is correct, Martin is still the aggressor and in the eyes of the law Zimmerman could legally used deadly force if he felt that his life was in danger. When Martin started utilizing the sidewalk as a weapon to the back of Zimmerman's head, Zimmerman had full reason to believe his life may be in danger.

Well, no, that's not exactly how the Florida justifiable use of force statute works, but the fact remains that under that statute, even if Zimmerman was the aggressor he would have had the right to use deadly force if he reasonably believed that Martin was endangering his life. We do not know for sure, however, whether Martin pounded Zimmerman's head into the pavement (no eyewitness other than Zimmerman has asserted this, AFAIK) or whether the injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head arose from some other cause; furthermore, even assuming that Martin pounded Zimmerman's head into the pavement one or more times, we do not know that he was still doing so when he was shot, or whether Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life when he pulled his gun.

From Wikipedia: The jewelry was impounded and given to the police, but no evidence ever surfaced to indicate that the jewelry was stolen. Martin's third suspension involved a marijuana pipe, and an empty bag containing marijuana residue. Martin was not charged with any crime related to these incidents and did not have a juvenile record.[45][46][47][48][49]

Unless you can provide proof of these so-called "assaults" and "weapon possession" (a picture of a gun on his cell phone doesn't count as evidence, especially since we don't see who is holding the weapon), then STFU and quit pulling bullsh*t out of your ass.

OnlyM3:FTFAIn another, he refers to a fistfight with another boy who "snitched" on him.Ah so in addition to ...VandalismPossession of stolen goodsviolenceAssault of random bus driverDrug use/salesWeapons possession

He had a history of jumping people he feels are "snitching". Who was Zim calling again?Good riddance dirt bag.

Martin had no criminal record. There is no proof that anything you said happened except for him being suspended from school for having a baggie that smelled like pot.

Quietwalker- (1) The physical evidence available to police confirms the story- (2) The electronic (cell phone), information available to police confirms the story- (3) The actual eye witnesses corroborate the story- (4) The medical evidence (both Zimmerman's wounds, and the coroner's report) confirm the story- (5) After several hours of interrogation, police believed his story

None of that actually confirms anything Zimmerman said; it doesn't contradict it, but it leaves plenty of space for alternative events to have happened. Self defense is an affirmative defense, its not simply a matter of introducing reasonable doubt.

Agreed, there may have been an alternate series of events, and as you say, he must prove his series of events occurred, not just rely on lack of evidence for alternate events.

To disagree with you though, everything that the police indicated they considered does confirm everything Zimmerman said. They could find no contradictions, as you pointed out, and further, where evidence would exist, it did. So strongly did this evidence support his side that the police didn't even arrest him. It wasn't until a politically motivated individual tried to ride a wave of public resentment well after the situation had passed that he was even charged.

I believe that when this goes to trial, he'll be acquitted. I see scant justification for any other outcome.

No but they should use the most recent photos available to most accurately represent him. It doesn't do any good to be hyperbolic with pics of the young man. The real pic's will be presented at trial. And even if you tried to elicit sympathy from the jury pool once they see a broader spectrum of the real young man the "baby picture" strategy could backfire.

This is really the only part of the story I don't feel snarky about. What if the family didn't have a school picture of him that was more recent? I know I didn't have school pictures around his age. Let's say ZImmerman dressed up as Rambo for Halloween. I wouldn't want that picture used in the news, either.

tenpoundsofcheese:You are missing the point of this thread.The defense is looking to introduce things that will raise a reasonable doubt in the jury.

How would a picture of a gun have helped Martin against the real gun that killed him?

tenpoundsofcheese:gimmegimme: gblive: tyrajam: Wolf_Blitzer: Tatsuma: He also texted a picture of himself holding a gun, asked another one to help him buy one, and proclaimed himself to be a gangsta. That's way above and beyond ITG

What in the fark are you talking about? Nobody cares that Martin had pics of a gun on his phone, it is the text messages on his phone where he is trying to illegally buy a pistol that are being considered. Talk about pathetic!

If you read some other articles... the pistol in the picture on Trayvon's phone is believed to be stolen.

How did Zimmerman know about the picture?

Martin may have shown it to Zimmerman before the altercation started.You don't know either way.

WTF does it matter. You are missing the point again.

The point is that you are grasping at straws. How could the picture of a gun that you mention give Zimmerman a reason to shoot the kid?

What in the fark are you talking about? Nobody cares that Martin had pics of a gun on his phone, it is the text messages on his phone where he is trying to illegally buy a pistol that are being considered. Talk about pathetic!

If you read some other articles... the pistol in the picture on Trayvon's phone is believed to be stolen.

If you read some other articles, Trayvon Martin was going home to make purple drank, owning a screwdriver while black is proof that you're a burglar, and Facebook pictures are a more accurate judge of character than documented instances of anger management problems and aggression.

ChaosStar:gimmegimme: ChaosStar: gimmegimme: ChaosStar: "Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police." - Orlando SentinelYou don't really walk up to someone and ask them "do you have a problem" unless you feel like they've done or are doing something against you in some way.

Zimmerman said...Zimmerman said...Zimmerman said...

And "Do you have a problem?" is EXACTLY what people would ask if they were being pursued.

"Do you have a problem?" is something you, and someone like Martin would say if you were being followed. Normal, rational people, might ask "why are you following me?" instead of trying to be an aggressive thug. This is exactly why the online material is credible evidence in the trial, it goes to show the type of person Martin was, the type that would punch first, ask questions later.

HAHAHAHAHA! Now you're justifying the death of a 17-year-old by impugning what he asked of the armed man who was following him, even when he left the sidewalk to try and get away.

You're right. Martin had the obligation to bow and ask, "Dear Sir, I mean no disrespect; I couldn't help but notice you have been following me around for several moments and this has caused me some concern. If it's not too much of an imposition, may I please ask if we have any business to discuss that I don't know about? Thank you in advance."

Now you're just showing you're a troll arguing just to argue.I wish I could punctuate every single word of my next sentence with the smack of a bat to your head so maybe you would remember it.Martin approached Zimmerman after Zimmerman lost him, meaning Martin was not trying to get away, he had gotten away.

Except Martin had no reason to do so. At all. It makes precisely ZERO sense that he would circle back after escaping his stalker.

Zimmerman has a documented history of powertripping, anger management issues and violence. Continuing his pursuit after complaining "they always get away" is consistent with that history.

Martin had a history of...being a typical ITG rap fan and smoking pot. Circling back to confront someone who, for all he knew, could have been an undercover cop or a mugger is not consistent with that history.

What in the fark are you talking about? Nobody cares that Martin had pics of a gun on his phone, it is the text messages on his phone where he is trying to illegally buy a pistol that are being considered. Talk about pathetic!

If you read some other articles... the pistol in the picture on Trayvon's phone is believed to be stolen.

A dispatcher is not a law enforcement officer in Seminole County.....they cannot order you to not do something. A dispatcher could be prosecuted and sent to prison if they mislead that they are law enforcement and they are not

Can be sent to prison for telling a nutter to simmer down.. can not be sent to prison for hunting human game with a gun

ChaosStar:gimmegimme: ChaosStar: gimmegimme: ChaosStar: "Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police." - Orlando SentinelYou don't really walk up to someone and ask them "do you have a problem" unless you feel like they've done or are doing something against you in some way.

Zimmerman said...Zimmerman said...Zimmerman said...

And "Do you have a problem?" is EXACTLY what people would ask if they were being pursued.

"Do you have a problem?" is something you, and someone like Martin would say if you were being followed. Normal, rational people, might ask "why are you following me?" instead of trying to be an aggressive thug. This is exactly why the online material is credible evidence in the trial, it goes to show the type of person Martin was, the type that would punch first, ask questions later.

HAHAHAHAHA! Now you're justifying the death of a 17-year-old by impugning what he asked of the armed man who was following him, even when he left the sidewalk to try and get away.

You're right. Martin had the obligation to bow and ask, "Dear Sir, I mean no disrespect; I couldn't help but notice you have been following me around for several moments and this has caused me some concern. If it's not too much of an imposition, may I please ask if we have any business to discuss that I don't know about? Thank you in advance."

Now you're just showing you're a troll arguing just to argue.I wish I could punctuate every single word of my next sentence with the smack of a bat to your head so maybe you would remember it.Martin approached Zimmerman after Zimmerman lost him, meaning Martin was not trying to get away, he had gotten away.

Goodness! You can't find politer rhetoric to communicate that idea? I like to think you're a normal, rational person instead of trying to be an aggressive thug.

ChaosStar:You don't really walk up to someone and ask them "do you have a problem" unless you feel like they've done or are doing something against you in some way.

1) Zimmerman has no witnesses to altercation we do not know who approached who or what was really said

2) You ignore the fact that by Zimmerman chasing Martin for no legal reason after Martin fled from him can be construed as assault under FL law - runnig away indicates fear of harm- so yes Zimmerman did do something to him

3) that actually is a reasonable question to ask someone chasing you for no legal reason

4) Zimmerman should have told him why he had chased him, this possibly would have led Martin not ot fear for his safety

5) If I confronted someone who was chasing me for no legal reason and they reached into their pocket I would take that as a lethal threat (you know like the cops do) and do everything in my power to neutralize that threat since I feel my life is in danger

Did the persecution hire you to help them make their case? because you are doing an awesome job doing so

tyrajam:PLEASE NOTE:1. Zimmerman was not told by the police not to follow Martin. He was told by a non-LEO operator "we don't need you to do that".

Please carry on.

It doesn't matter, because according to Zimmerman's fan club, he didn't keep pursuing Martin. And Martin, being a purple drank chuggin' thug (not racist) who was a burglar (despite no evidence of that - again, not racist) approached and confronted Zimmerman even after telling his girlfriend he was trying to get away from Zimmerman, because you know how violent THOSE people are. Not racist.

What should we be doing in the white community to reduce abuse of the drug?

LordJiro:Wolf_Blitzer: Tatsuma: Martin admitted that it was indeed a burglary tool and that those were stolen property, he only denied that it was his. And for fark's sake, they found a bag with a screwdriver and 12 pieces of women's jewelery that he denied having stolen, you really are buying that?

Not just tweets, a picture of himself holding a gun, asking where he could buy one, asking another to split the cost in half with him, calling himself a gangsta, beating up a snitch.. He also sold drugs, took drugs, not just smoking weed but harder stuff as well

So we've established you were completely wrong about Martin having any actual, documented history of violence, but you're charging ahead with your character assassination of a dead kid. You're consistent, I'll give you that.

This is one of the idiots who seriously argued that Martin was probably heading home to make purple drank, while the man with a documented history of anger management issues and power trips totally was totally going to give up the chase and let a perceived "thug" get away.

What?!?!?!?! Why in the world would anyone think there's a racial component to the way pro-Zimmerman folks see the case?

Can you please present guidelines as to what kind of online rhetoric is justification for a person's death caused by some means?

tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: Why was Zimmerman following Martin? Under what authority did he engage in an armed pursuit?

weird questions.since when do you need authority to follow someone?

You're really denying that Zim was playing police officer?

I'll answer your question by telling you that no one is saying that the online rhetoric is justification for Martin's death. You're the only one making that connection.What the defense is saying is that Martin wasn't the angel the media made him out to be, in fact he was the type likely to punch Zimmerman in the nose and beat his head on the sidewalk for a perceived slight to himself and this online rhetoric goes to prove that. There's your answer..

Is there any evidence of this perceived slight that you mention? Because all the evidence and purported evidence that you have listed here in your posts are also consistent with Martin's perhaps perceiving that he and/or his father's fiancée's condo unit were in danger from a stranger who was following him for no reason that he could fathom.

"Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police." - Orlando SentinelYou don't really walk up to someone and ask them "do you have a problem" unless you feel like they've done or are doing something against you in some way.

Again, we *only* have Zimmerman's word for that, backed up with zero evidence.

Except /all/ the evidence backs it up.

Quietwalker- (1) The physical evidence available to police confirms the story - (2) The electronic (cell phone), information available to police confirms the story - (3) The actual eye witnesses corroborate the story - (4) The medical evidence (both Zimmerman's wounds, and the coroner's report) confirm the story - (5) After several hours of interrogation, police believed his story

Wolf_Blitzer:Tatsuma: Martin admitted that it was indeed a burglary tool and that those were stolen property, he only denied that it was his. And for fark's sake, they found a bag with a screwdriver and 12 pieces of women's jewelery that he denied having stolen, you really are buying that?

Not just tweets, a picture of himself holding a gun, asking where he could buy one, asking another to split the cost in half with him, calling himself a gangsta, beating up a snitch.. He also sold drugs, took drugs, not just smoking weed but harder stuff as well

So we've established you were completely wrong about Martin having any actual, documented history of violence, but you're charging ahead with your character assassination of a dead kid. You're consistent, I'll give you that.

This is one of the idiots who seriously argued that Martin was probably heading home to make purple drank, while the man with a documented history of anger management issues and power trips totally was totally going to give up the chase and let a perceived "thug" get away.

kortex:I donated to Zimmerman's defense fund. Why? He acted in self defense. He was afraid for his life. It comes as no surprise that lil Trayvon was a drug making gangster wanna be. He thought he would show how gangster he was an beat up somebody. Well, he beat up the wrong guy. Serves the little shiathead right. I hope Zimmerman is found not guilty of all charges.

Tatsuma:Martin admitted that it was indeed a burglary tool and that those were stolen property, he only denied that it was his. And for fark's sake, they found a bag with a screwdriver and 12 pieces of women's jewelery that he denied having stolen, you really are buying that?

Not just tweets, a picture of himself holding a gun, asking where he could buy one, asking another to split the cost in half with him, calling himself a gangsta, beating up a snitch.. He also sold drugs, took drugs, not just smoking weed but harder stuff as well

So we've established you were completely wrong about Martin having any actual, documented history of violence, but you're charging ahead with your character assassination of a dead kid. You're consistent, I'll give you that.

ChaosStar:gimmegimme: ChaosStar: "Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police." - Orlando SentinelYou don't really walk up to someone and ask them "do you have a problem" unless you feel like they've done or are doing something against you in some way.

Zimmerman said...Zimmerman said...Zimmerman said...

And "Do you have a problem?" is EXACTLY what people would ask if they were being pursued.

"Do you have a problem?" is something you, and someone like Martin would say if you were being followed. Normal, rational people, might ask "why are you following me?" instead of trying to be an aggressive thug. This is exactly why the online material is credible evidence in the trial, it goes to show the type of person Martin was, the type that would punch first, ask questions later.

HAHAHAHAHA! Now you're justifying the death of a 17-year-old by impugning what he asked of the armed man who was following him, even when he left the sidewalk to try and get away.

You're right. Martin had the obligation to bow and ask, "Dear Sir, I mean no disrespect; I couldn't help but notice you have been following me around for several moments and this has caused me some concern. If it's not too much of an imposition, may I please ask if we have any business to discuss that I don't know about? Thank you in advance."

gimmegimme:BgJonson79: gimmegimme: FloridaFarkTag: LegacyDL: So by that logic if the kid was a drunk abusive Irish man that beat his wife it would be okay to shoot him as well.

When did text messages become de facto proof that warrants killing people?

Calling yourself "No Limit Ni--a" on twitter don't help either

Can you please present guidelines as to what kind of online rhetoric is justification for a person's cold-blooded murder?

Since there's been no trial, how can you say there's been a murder?

I'm not on the jury. "Alleged murder." Happy now?

jayphat: By far I am not a Zimmerman defender. HOWEVER, your article lends zero credence when you use this farking picture.[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x835]

In all honesty, folks, this happens with just about every crime or every person who dies. They use a pleasant picture. We had a guy in high school who died in a car crash while driving the wrong way down a one-way street with no lights on on a suspended license while drunk and high and driving with his knees, etc. The news and newspaper used his school picture for obvious reasons. Come on.

It hardly seems necessary. He was wearing a hoodie. I've read enough people's comments to know that this fact alone made it OK for George to shoot. By wearing a hoodie, he proclaimed to the world that he was up to no good. He was trying to conce

seadoo2006:LordJiro: seadoo2006: A Terrible Human: Tatsuma: Wolf_Blitzer: Trayvon Martin had absolutely no documented history of violence. George Zimmerman on the other hand...

Well, except for the fights he himself talked about on social media sites, the fact that he assaulted a bus driver (adult in position of authority asking him what he was doing) and he was caught with burglary tools and stolen property in his locker.

So that means he totally deserved to die?

Nope, but putting the beat down on an armed, concerned citizen means he deserved to die. Put it another way, he beat up an armed dude ... that's some Darwin-level stupidity right there and yes, it's probably a good thing he's not around anymore.

So if I were unarmed, and approached by someone who I KNOW has been following me with unknown intent, who then pulls a gun on me, I should just accept the bullet? Or wait for an explanation, and risk...well, getting shot? Or should I attempt to defend myself?

Please show your evidence that the gun was pulled prior to Martin getting shot.

Well, if the gun were under Zimmerman's shirt, there would be a bullethole in the shirt, right? And it's really hard to shoot someone in the chest if a gun is holstered.

gimmegimme:ChaosStar: "Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police." - Orlando SentinelYou don't really walk up to someone and ask them "do you have a problem" unless you feel like they've done or are doing something against you in some way.

Zimmerman said...Zimmerman said...Zimmerman said...

And "Do you have a problem?" is EXACTLY what people would ask if they were being pursued.

"Do you have a problem?" is something you, and someone like Martin would say if you were being followed. Normal, rational people, might ask "why are you following me?" instead of trying to be an aggressive thug. This is exactly why the online material is credible evidence in the trial, it goes to show the type of person Martin was, the type that would punch first, ask questions later.

Tatsuma:FuryOfFirestorm: If he had consumed "purple drank" he would have had codeine in his system, which is not the case. Also, "drank" makes you lethargic, not aggressive (codeine is a sedative). "Drank" requires cough syrup, sprite (or vodka) and sometimes Jolly Ranchers. None of these items were purchased from Trayvon the night of his murder.

Actually that's false, he had both sprite (well, a variant, it was not iced tea, as reported) and he had skittles (doesn't just have to be Jolly Ranchers) and he has documented discussion about using codeine and drinking purple drank.

Doesn't mean he was high on the night, more likely he went to buy what he needed and was going back home to get high on some sizzurp.

Back to the topic at hand, how would Martin's intent of taking codeine or his fondness for pot translate into violent tendencies? How is experimenting with drugs out of the norm for a teenager? Zimmerman's defense seems to be more based upon playing up fears in which drug users and young black males are demonized.

Unknown_Poltroon:ChaosStar: Being on the losing side of a fight, where you're getting your head bashed open, is grounds for escalation of force when defending yourself, as you are in fear for your life. Especially when you didn't start said fight.

Except he did start the fight. Or are you now saying the kid dragged him out of his car? I mean youre making up other shiat, why not make up carjacking?

Except he didn't. He lost Martin, was going back to his vehicle, Martin approached him, the spoke for the first time that night and Martin attacked Zimmerman. I would ask why this is so hard for people to comprehend but I know there's a million different stories out there containing a million different, incorrect nuances to the night.

bugontherug:AngryDragon: Note this part of the timeline was confirmed by the police.

Nobody saw Trayvon slamming Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk.

Try an experiment. Get a nice, soft pad, maybe a pillow, and a friend.

Lay flat on your back, and have your friend straddle you at the waist. Then have him try to "slam" your head back into the soft padding. Remind him that he's not allowed to pull your hair, because Zimmerman's head was shaved.

Without a very great difference in strength, I doubt it's even possible to slam someone's head into the ground if he offers resistance. Especially not from the position described.

And what exactly was Trayvon holding onto?

Trayvon could have been holding onto his ears. It's not like Zimmerman was using them that night.

After re-reviewing the facts, and reading through here, I'm actually a little confused. Maybe someone could clear things up for me

I can't exactly tell when someone is simply a gun hater, a cop/authority hater, a racist, motivated by some sort of politically correct guilt, or some combination of the above.

About the only folks I can detect are those who think drug users or thug-gangsters deserve death, and those who believe their assumptions are valid enough to circumvent the definition of existing laws.

seadoo2006:A Terrible Human: Tatsuma: Wolf_Blitzer: Trayvon Martin had absolutely no documented history of violence. George Zimmerman on the other hand...

Well, except for the fights he himself talked about on social media sites, the fact that he assaulted a bus driver (adult in position of authority asking him what he was doing) and he was caught with burglary tools and stolen property in his locker.

So that means he totally deserved to die?

Nope, but putting the beat down on an armed, concerned citizen means he deserved to die. Put it another way, he beat up an armed dude ... that's some Darwin-level stupidity right there and yes, it's probably a good thing he's not around anymore.

He was on the way to beating up an armed dude when Zimmerman shot and killed him. Can you at least acknowledge intellectually that Martin could have been afraid and could have been scared in the same way Zimmerman was scared?

Can you please present guidelines as to what kind of online rhetoric is justification for a person's death caused by some means?

tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: Why was Zimmerman following Martin? Under what authority did he engage in an armed pursuit?

weird questions.since when do you need authority to follow someone?

You're really denying that Zim was playing police officer?

I'll answer your question by telling you that no one is saying that the online rhetoric is justification for Martin's death. You're the only one making that connection.What the defense is saying is that Martin wasn't the angel the media made him out to be, in fact he was the type likely to punch Zimmerman in the nose and beat his head on the sidewalk for a perceived slight to himself and this online rhetoric goes to prove that. There's your answer..

Is there any evidence of this perceived slight that you mention? Because all the evidence and purported evidence that you have listed here in your posts are also consistent with Martin's perhaps perceiving that he and/or his father's fiancée's condo unit were in danger from a stranger who was following him for no reason that he could fathom.

"Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police." - Orlando SentinelYou don't really walk up to someone and ask them "do you have a problem" unless you feel like they've done or are doing something against you in some way.

seadoo2006:A Terrible Human: Tatsuma: Wolf_Blitzer: Trayvon Martin had absolutely no documented history of violence. George Zimmerman on the other hand...

Well, except for the fights he himself talked about on social media sites, the fact that he assaulted a bus driver (adult in position of authority asking him what he was doing) and he was caught with burglary tools and stolen property in his locker.

So that means he totally deserved to die?

Nope, but putting the beat down on an armed, concerned citizen means he deserved to die. Put it another way, he beat up an armed dude ... that's some Darwin-level stupidity right there and yes, it's probably a good thing he's not around anymore.

So if I were unarmed, and approached by someone who I KNOW has been following me with unknown intent, who then pulls a gun on me, I should just accept the bullet? Or wait for an explanation, and risk...well, getting shot? Or should I attempt to defend myself?

BgJonson79:gimmegimme: FloridaFarkTag: LegacyDL: So by that logic if the kid was a drunk abusive Irish man that beat his wife it would be okay to shoot him as well.

When did text messages become de facto proof that warrants killing people?

Calling yourself "No Limit Ni--a" on twitter don't help either

Can you please present guidelines as to what kind of online rhetoric is justification for a person's cold-blooded murder?

Since there's been no trial, how can you say there's been a murder?

I'm not on the jury. "Alleged murder." Happy now?

jayphat:By far I am not a Zimmerman defender. HOWEVER, your article lends zero credence when you use this farking picture.[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x835]

In all honesty, folks, this happens with just about every crime or every person who dies. They use a pleasant picture. We had a guy in high school who died in a car crash while driving the wrong way down a one-way street with no lights on on a suspended license while drunk and high and driving with his knees, etc. The news and newspaper used his school picture for obvious reasons. Come on.

A Terrible Human:Tatsuma: Wolf_Blitzer: Trayvon Martin had absolutely no documented history of violence. George Zimmerman on the other hand...

Well, except for the fights he himself talked about on social media sites, the fact that he assaulted a bus driver (adult in position of authority asking him what he was doing) and he was caught with burglary tools and stolen property in his locker.

So that means he totally deserved to die?

Nope, but putting the beat down on an armed, concerned citizen means he deserved to die. Put it another way, he beat up an armed dude ... that's some Darwin-level stupidity right there and yes, it's probably a good thing he's not around anymore.

ChaosStar:Being on the losing side of a fight, where you're getting your head bashed open, is grounds for escalation of force when defending yourself, as you are in fear for your life. Especially when you didn't start said fight.

Except he did start the fight. Or are you now saying the kid dragged him out of his car? I mean youre making up other shiat, why not make up carjacking?

Tatsuma:Wolf_Blitzer: Trayvon Martin had absolutely no documented history of violence. George Zimmerman on the other hand...

Well, except for the fights he himself talked about on social media sites, the fact that he assaulted a bus driver (adult in position of authority asking him what he was doing) and he was caught with burglary tools and stolen property in his locker.

This trial was over when they went for a murder in the second degree charge. It won't happen.

Oh sorry, I thought you were privy to some new info. We know armed Zim was stalking unarmed Martin, we know there was a fight that cost Zim some skin, and we know Zim shot Martin. And we have Zim's side of the story. I really can't wait for this trial to be over so the derpulation can stop.

Really? You know he was stalking Martin? Please do cite a source for this because I can give you transcripts and audio that goes to the contrary. Seems like you're the one full of derpulation there chief.

The man with known power-trip and anger management issues biatching about how "they always get away" is a good start.

You could win an Olympic gold with that leap buddy.A man has anger management issues, and he complaining that the crooks always get away because police response time is so slow, clearly that means he was stalking Martin through the neighborhood.What deductive reasoning are you using huh?

Why was he not in his truck after being told he 'didn't need to follow Martin'? Why did he just not go home, or go wherever he wanted to meet the cops, then call them back?

Wolf_Blitzer:Tatsuma: Wolf_Blitzer: Trayvon Martin had absolutely no documented history of violence. George Zimmerman on the other hand...

Well, except for the fights he himself talked about on social media sites, the fact that he assaulted a bus driver (adult in position of authority asking him what he was doing) and he was caught with burglary tools and stolen property in his locker.

There's no evidence that any assault happened against a bus driver. Martin was suspended for marijuana.

If having tweets claiming to be in fights makes you violent, the entire Internet Tough Guy Brigade here should be in prison for life.

Fark disappointed me. Zimmerman deserves the death penalty. It doesn't matter the content of Martin's character except for one thing, was he confrontational? Zimmerman has a history of being wound up tight with a justice complex. Martin defended himself and stood his ground. If Zimmerman gets off he and his wife better move to Peru with mama. He won't be safe anywhere state side.

Abox:seadoo2006: Abox: Imagine a road rage incident where you chase a guy down because what the hell you have a gun, you get into a fight, and you shoot the guy dead because you were losing the fight. B-b-b-but I was standing my ground!

That's exactly the type of altercation that SYG was passed for

Chasing somebody down and shooting someone because you're on the losing end of a fight that would never had happened had you ACTUALLY stood your ground? Ah, sure why not.

Your scenario is completely different than what happened in the Zimmerman case. When you chase the person down, you are the aggressor until you end the altercation. Anything you do means you did it without provocation and as such are not allowed to "stand your ground".Zimmerman did not chase down Martin, no matter how much you want to scream it at the top of your lungs the evidence clearly shows it didn't happen that way.

mr intrepid:duffblue: gimmegimme: FloridaFarkTag: MJMaloney187: Wait? Does the article say the defense was allowed to use all that? I thought the article said the hearing was next week ...

No, it has yet to be allowed

Some of it will be allowed. This judge will be overturned on appeal if evidence is not allowed and Zimmerman is convicted....esp any evidence showing TM stoned around the time of incident, pot use, and any time the prosecutors spew the "Trayvon was a 14 yr old honor student" BS

It is obvious that the prosecution is in trouble.... they want all the negative Trayvon evidence excluded....you can't lynch an innocent man if you are caught cold busted lying

Just wonder how much of their ghetto the Black Racists gonna burn when they can't lynch Zimmerman...

Ted Nugent isn't black...

You probably aren't old enough to remember the Rodney king riots

The "negative Trayon evidence" might be considered largely irrelevant. Zimmerman didn't know anything about him, except what happened that night. And the fact that he lost a fight might serve as a motive for his pursuit and shooting.

You slam the back of my head into the ground, you die. Period. I would rather go to jail if the alternatives are death or mental retardation.

Take your head out of your arse for a second and pretend Zimmerman is your grandfather. What would you want your grandfather to do? That punk lived like a gangster and he died like a gangster. BET ought to give Zimmerman a medal for keeping the brand alive.

This trial was over when they went for a murder in the second degree charge. It won't happen.

Oh sorry, I thought you were privy to some new info. We know armed Zim was stalking unarmed Martin, we know there was a fight that cost Zim some skin, and we know Zim shot Martin. And we have Zim's side of the story. I really can't wait for this trial to be over so the derpulation can stop.

Really? You know he was stalking Martin? Please do cite a source for this because I can give you transcripts and audio that goes to the contrary. Seems like you're the one full of derpulation there chief.

The man with known power-trip and anger management issues biatching about how "they always get away" is a good start.

Abox:ChaosStar: Abox: ChaosStar: Especially when you didn't start said fight.

Sorry, I didn't realize the trial was over.

This trial was over when they went for a murder in the second degree charge. It won't happen.

Oh sorry, I thought you were privy to some new info. We know armed Zim was stalking unarmed Martin, we know there was a fight that cost Zim some skin, and we know Zim shot Martin. And we have Zim's side of the story. I really can't wait for this trial to be over so the derpulation can stop.

Really? You know he was stalking Martin? Please do cite a source for this because I can give you transcripts and audio that goes to the contrary. Seems like you're the one full of derpulation there chief.

Wolf_Blitzer:Trayvon Martin had absolutely no documented history of violence. George Zimmerman on the other hand...

Well, except for the fights he himself talked about on social media sites, the fact that he assaulted a bus driver (adult in position of authority asking him what he was doing) and he was caught with burglary tools and stolen property in his locker.

gimmegimme:ChaosStar: What the defense is saying is that Martin wasn't the angel the media made him out to be, in fact he was the type likely to punch Zimmerman in the nose and beat his head on the sidewalk for a perceived slight to himself and this online rhetoric goes to prove that. There's your answer.

As to your second, no, Zimmerman wasn't playing police officer. He was being a concerned citizen who was reporting everything he was seeing to the police, and following the instructions from the dispatcher including not following Martin when he was told he didn't need to.

Why does Martin's online rhetoric matter, but Zimmerman's history of violence doesn't? If Zimmerman ended the pursuit after being told "you don't have to do that," why wasn't he driving home?

Who's saying Zimmerman's history of violence doesn't matter? No one but the voices in your head apparently, cause I haven't seen it in this thread.Why wasn't he driving home? Well because he wasn't at his truck then, remember he stopped pursuit, and because he was waiting for a call from the officers to tell them where to meet, since he didn't want to say his address aloud as he didn't know where Martin was?

Tatsuma:So when trying to establish whether he was assaulted or not, it's irrelevant to present information specifically about Martin's character when it comes to violence, crime and drug abuse? That's racist?

Trayvon Martin had absolutely no documented history of violence. George Zimmerman on the other hand...

ChaosStar:Abox: ChaosStar: Especially when you didn't start said fight.

Sorry, I didn't realize the trial was over.

This trial was over when they went for a murder in the second degree charge. It won't happen.

Oh sorry, I thought you were privy to some new info. We know armed Zim was stalking unarmed Martin, we know there was a fight that cost Zim some skin, and we know Zim shot Martin. And we have Zim's side of the story. I really can't wait for this trial to be over so the derpulation can stop.

gimmegimme:GF named my left testicle thundercles: gimmegimme: GF named my left testicle thundercles: If you have more loyalty to your race than you do to truth and justice then you are part of the problem.

Isn't it sick? These people are gleeful over the death of a 17-year-old kid.

[files.abovetopsecret.com image 520x673]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x749]

i dont know the facts. but it is possible that he deserved it by attacking zimmerman. i dont know if that is the case. everyone should chill out. allow the facts to be presented in a reasonable manner in court. that is all i have to say.

Why excuse Zimmerman's actions? If you are armed and you stalk someone around in a car and then on foot and follow the person between buildings when it's clear they are trying to get the hell away from you, well, you just started a fight.

Unless you're a cop, which Zimmerman, with his history of violence, is certainly not.

...even if you're a cop, that's the sort of shiat that would get you thrown off the force in a sane world (and even a few weeks paid leave in this insane one), unless you had ironclad absolute proof that he was an immediate threat to anyone else. Zimmerman doesn't even have proof that Martin started the final altercation that got him killed.

So when trying to establish whether he was assaulted or not, it's irrelevant to present information specifically about Martin's character when it comes to violence, crime and drug abuse? That's racist?

Wolf_Blitzer:duffblue: Peter von Nostrand: tyrajam: The fact that he likes his weed is irrelevant to the case. The fact that he was having online conversations about purple drank, it was found in his system, and he was returning after buying 2 of the 3 ingredients used to make it does help explain why he was so aggressive and attacked the little mexican guy who ended up shooting him in self defense.

All of which is irrelevant if Zimmerman doesn't follow him for no reason and confront him

So it's acceptable to assault somebody who confronts you?

You'd think this was painfully obvious by now, but we have only Zimmerman's word for it that Martin struck first, and its possible he has some motivation for lying in this regard...

Naw, what possible motive might Zimmerman have for lying about who struck first?

Imagine a road rage incident where you chase a guy down because what the hell you have a gun, you get into a fight, and you shoot the guy dead because you were losing the fight. B-b-b-but I was standing my ground!

duffblue:gimmegimme: FloridaFarkTag: MJMaloney187: Wait? Does the article say the defense was allowed to use all that? I thought the article said the hearing was next week ...

No, it has yet to be allowed

Some of it will be allowed. This judge will be overturned on appeal if evidence is not allowed and Zimmerman is convicted....esp any evidence showing TM stoned around the time of incident, pot use, and any time the prosecutors spew the "Trayvon was a 14 yr old honor student" BS

It is obvious that the prosecution is in trouble.... they want all the negative Trayvon evidence excluded....you can't lynch an innocent man if you are caught cold busted lying

Just wonder how much of their ghetto the Black Racists gonna burn when they can't lynch Zimmerman...

Ted Nugent isn't black...

You probably aren't old enough to remember the Rodney king riots

The "negative Trayon evidence" might be considered largely irrelevant. Zimmerman didn't know anything about him, except what happened that night. And the fact that he lost a fight might serve as a motive for his pursuit and shooting.

Doom MD:Wolf_Blitzer: duffblue: Peter von Nostrand: tyrajam: The fact that he likes his weed is irrelevant to the case. The fact that he was having online conversations about purple drank, it was found in his system, and he was returning after buying 2 of the 3 ingredients used to make it does help explain why he was so aggressive and attacked the little mexican guy who ended up shooting him in self defense.

All of which is irrelevant if Zimmerman doesn't follow him for no reason and confront him

So it's acceptable to assault somebody who confronts you?

You'd think this was painfully obvious by now, but we have only Zimmerman's word for it that Martin struck first, and its possible he has some motivation for lying in this regard...

Hence reasonable doubt

How convenient that you can create reasonable doubt by killing your victim instead of being him up.

tenpoundsofcheese:It doesn't matter. He had authority to be armed (I assume he had a license to be armed), you don't anyone's authority to pursuit (aka follow) someone.

Why was he pursuing Martin in the first place? Surely he had a reason to roll around behind the kid and then follow him on foot.

Abox:ChaosStar: Zimmerman then suffers a broken nose, injured head, and shows signs he was struggling while on his back. These are all signs of being the victim, not the aggressor.

No sir. Those are signs that he was on the losing end of a fight. A gun may make you feel tough but it doesn't make you tough.

The gun certainly made Martin a lot weaker didn't it? It's a force multiplier so, yeah, it does make you tougher in that you can use it to walk away from a situation that an unarmed person wouldn't live through.

Being on the losing side of a fight, where you're getting your head bashed open, is grounds for escalation of force when defending yourself, as you are in fear for your life. Especially when you didn't start said fight.

gimmegimme:FloridaFarkTag: MJMaloney187: Wait? Does the article say the defense was allowed to use all that? I thought the article said the hearing was next week ...

No, it has yet to be allowed

Some of it will be allowed. This judge will be overturned on appeal if evidence is not allowed and Zimmerman is convicted....esp any evidence showing TM stoned around the time of incident, pot use, and any time the prosecutors spew the "Trayvon was a 14 yr old honor student" BS

It is obvious that the prosecution is in trouble.... they want all the negative Trayvon evidence excluded....you can't lynch an innocent man if you are caught cold busted lying

Just wonder how much of their ghetto the Black Racists gonna burn when they can't lynch Zimmerman...

seadoo2006:Does that mean I can just walk through your yard anytime, while looking suspicious black, and get pissed shot if anyoen asks me why I'm doing so and if they keep following me after I "try" to leave. Can I beat up that homeowner for doing so?

ChaosStar:gimmegimme: GF named my left testicle thundercles: gimmegimme: GF named my left testicle thundercles: If you have more loyalty to your race than you do to truth and justice then you are part of the problem.

Isn't it sick? These people are gleeful over the death of a 17-year-old kid.

[files.abovetopsecret.com image 520x673]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x749]

i dont know the facts. but it is possible that he deserved it by attacking zimmerman. i dont know if that is the case. everyone should chill out. allow the facts to be presented in a reasonable manner in court. that is all i have to say.

Why excuse Zimmerman's actions? If you are armed and you stalk someone around in a car and then on foot and follow the person between buildings when it's clear they are trying to get the hell away from you, well, you just started a fight.

Unless you're a cop, which Zimmerman, with his history of violence, is certainly not.

That's a perfect way to start a fight.To bad that's not what happened in this case.

Tell us what happened. You seem to know something the rest of the country doesn't.

gimmegimme:seadoo2006: gimmegimme: GF named my left testicle thundercles: gimmegimme: GF named my left testicle thundercles: If you have more loyalty to your race than you do to truth and justice then you are part of the problem.

Isn't it sick? These people are gleeful over the death of a 17-year-old kid.

[files.abovetopsecret.com image 520x673]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x749]

i dont know the facts. but it is possible that he deserved it by attacking zimmerman. i dont know if that is the case. everyone should chill out. allow the facts to be presented in a reasonable manner in court. that is all i have to say.

Why excuse Zimmerman's actions? If you are armed and you stalk someone around in a car and then on foot and follow the person between buildings when it's clear they are trying to get the hell away from you, well, you just started a fight.

Unless you're a cop, which Zimmerman, with his history of violence, is certainly not.

Does that mean I can just walk through your yard anytime, while looking suspicious, and get pissed if anyoen asks me why I'm doing so and if they keep following me after I "try" to leave. Can I beat up that homeowner for doing so?

Zimmerman didn't own the home. Your analogy is sillypants.

Besides, you would call 911 and do as you're told.

Uh, no, I've called 911 on several obvious drunk drivers and a couple hit-and-run people and followed them even against the 911 operator's advice ... why you may ask? For the same reason that people own guns, because by the time the police show up, that person is long gone.

Put it another way ... if you were sideswiped in traffic and the person took off ... would you call the police and wait for them to catch the hit and run, or would you keep your tabs on them until the police got there? I mean, that's what insurance is for, so why do you give two shiats if the person that hit your car is caught or not.

MJMaloney187:Wait? Does the article say the defense was allowed to use all that? I thought the article said the hearing was next week ...

No, it has yet to be allowed

Some of it will be allowed. This judge will be overturned on appeal if evidence is not allowed and Zimmerman is convicted....esp any evidence showing TM stoned around the time of incident, pot use, and any time the prosecutors spew the "Trayvon was a 14 yr old honor student" BS

It is obvious that the prosecution is in trouble.... they want all the negative Trayvon evidence excluded....you can't lynch an innocent man if you are caught cold busted lying

Just wonder how much of their ghetto the Black Racists gonna burn when they can't lynch Zimmerman...

gimmegimme:GF named my left testicle thundercles: If you have more loyalty to your race than you do to truth and justice then you are part of the problem.

Isn't it sick? These people are gleeful over the death of a 17-year-old kid.

[files.abovetopsecret.com image 520x673]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 500x749]

i dont know the facts. but it is possible that he deserved it by attacking zimmerman. i dont know if that is the case. everyone should chill out. allow the facts to be presented in a reasonable manner in court. that is all i have to say.

ChaosStar:From CNN.com's timeline of the events:"According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman tells authorities that after Zimmerman briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him. After the two exchange words, Zimmerman says, he reaches for his cell phone, and then Martin punches him in the nose. Zimmerman says Martin pins him to the ground and begins slamming his head into the sidewalk." Note this part of the timeline was confirmed by the police.When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

This ... can't believe this is still being debated. It's good the little shiatstain got shot ... Zimmerman should be thanks for doing the world a favor.

ChaosStar:From CNN.com's timeline of the events:"According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman tells authorities that after Zimmerman briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him. After the two exchange words, Zimmerman says, he reaches for his cell phone, and then Martin punches him in the nose. Zimmerman says Martin pins him to the ground and begins slamming his head into the sidewalk." Note this part of the timeline was confirmed by the police.When Zimmerman lost Martin, any initial altercation was over, meaning Zimmerman's alleged speaking or following Martin is irrelevant. Martin then begins a new altercation by approaching Zimmerman. Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman feels his life is in danger and utilizes his CCW. This is a textbook self defense scenario, taught in almost every ccp course I've ever seen. Case closed.

AirForceVet:I think the Zimmerman defense team should have gone for a plea deal.

Why? The state basically handed them a free acquittal by going for 2nd degree murder, for which there's plenty of reasonable doubt even without the victim having a history of getting into brawls, instead of manslaughter, which doesn't require much in the way of intent and on which the victim's participation in the fight has no bearing.

Why would you take a plea deal when the state seems actively determined to get your client off for you through sheer incompetence?